Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TheM62Manchester

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

[edit] TheM62Manchester

(2/14/1) Ended 01:41, 2006-08-07 (UTC)

TheM62Manchester (talk • contribs) – I have been here since May 2006, although I have edited before then as Chelston (talk • contribs) (my first ever edit was about the Ford Verona, and I have also done some vandal reporting as Blackrunner (talk • contribs) too, so I am not technically a new user. I had a long wikibreak, but that was due to circumstances beyond my control. I may not be that good at writing articles, but I am good at the maintenance of articles, nominating them for cleanup etc. and reporting on WP:AN and WP:ANI, and voting in WP:AFD as much as possible. If I was a sysop I would respond to reports at WP:RFPP and WP:DRV where necessary. I have also created templates as well for long-term vandals. --TheM62Manchester 16:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. --TheM62Manchester 16:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I would help out with WP:RFPP, WP:AFD and WP:DRV, as well as doing any requested moves should people want it. I would also delete any wp:csd candidates too.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: I feel pleased to have helped out with the maintenance of articles where it is needed, and fixing small inaccuracies, I am a wikignome so I do small, regular contributions rather than large ones.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: The VaughnWatch debacle has caused some stress, but I've had no major conflicts... I've been Wikignoming for 2 months now!!

Comments

• See TheM62Manchester's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• Edit count

Username   TheM62Manchester
Total edits     769
Distinct pages edited   336
Average edits/page      2.289
First edit      18:36, May 5, 2006
        
(main)  101
Talk    28
User    357
User talk       125
Image   1
Template        40
Category        1
Wikipedia       114
Wikipedia talk  2

Support

1. Moral support but urge withdrawal. Consensus is emerging and let's avoid a pile-on. I urge you to do some good editing and continue gnoming and return when you can satisfy the experience concerns raised by the Oppose voters. You should also edit from just one account from now on to resolve that issue. Newyorkbrad 18:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

   Comment - see the dates of the contributions for Chelston (talk • contribs) and Blackrunner (talk • contribs). --TheM62Manchester 18:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

   Noted, but Chelston's entire edit history seems to consist of five edits to a single article over a three-minute span, and Blackrunner had two posts to WP:ANI within one minute of each other, so neither of them is a significant increment to your edit history. It's no crime to have insufficient experience to be approved for Admin status -- I'm not ready myself and won't be for months, if ever -- but failing to recognize a clear consensus on this RfA will probably not help you if and when you try again. Additionally, you need to put a number or pound sign {#} before the colon(s) when you add comments to the numbered lists, or it throws the numbering off (no points deducted for that, however; I learned this rule myself about 15 minutes ago). I also see the message on your user page that you are going to be away this week; if that's a current message, this RfA should definitely not go forward as you need to be around to respond to questions you'll receive from other users here. Newyorkbrad 19:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

   Thanks for the advice, Newyorkbrad. I was only stating I'm not a total newbie! --TheM62Manchester 19:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

2. Support per Newyorkbrad.--Andeh 20:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose Too new, not enough edits, and sock puppet usage for no reason. Fails most of standards. —Mets501 (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

   Just a reminder that he has done nothing against policy by editing with sockpuppets (which there could be a good reason for) – they were not used abusively. See WP:SOCK. — FireFox ^(talk) _{16:49, 6 August '06}

   Comment - there is a good reason. I forgot to enable email on my old account Chelston (talk • contribs) so I set up another, and did the same thing again. I then had a long wikibreak but kept up with Wikipedia by reading it. Now I have enabled email, so this problem should not happen again. --TheM62Manchester 16:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

   Email can be enabled at any time; when you create the account or at any point in the future. And I know that the sock puppet thing was not against policy, but as Jimmy Wales put it, it's "uncool". —Mets501 (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

2. Strong oppose for inexperience --Guinnog 16:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Inexperience. - Mailer Diablo 17:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose - good editor, but a bit inexperienced. Will ^{(Take me down to the Paradise City)} 17:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose - Too few edits. --CFIF (talk to me) 17:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Very Strong Oppose per above concerns, although I don't mean to bite this newbie. More experience until next year would be welcome. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 17:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose - I'm so sorry, M62Manchester. You seem to be a solid editor, but your edit count is too low, and most of your edits seem to be in the User category. Wait a few months, edit more on the Wikipedia and main namespaces, and I can see myself voting for you. :) Srose (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

   Comment. Most User edits were tagging of sockpuppets. --TheM62Manchester 18:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

   Comment - I know, and that is a very valuable service to Wikipedia. :) However, I still think you need more experience in other areas of Wikipedia before getting the mop and broom. I'd like to see an even spread of contributions in the Wikipedia, main, Wikipedia talk and User talk namespaces. Admins have to be familiar with all aspects of Wikipedia, not just sockpuppetry or just articles. Like I said, though, in a few months, I'm sure your RfA will be successful. :) Srose (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

8. Oppose Too little experience of Wiki policy application. Continue to apply yourself to Project and article pages for a three or four more months and then reapply. (aeropagitica) (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose Not enough time working on policy issues. Wikipedia namespace edits to meet my RFA. --Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 20:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose I've just encountered this user on the AfD for Venus Butterfly, and without giving any rational reason he voted delete and tagged the article as unencyclopedic. If he doesn't understand the absolutely fundamental principle that Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors, he has a lot to learn before he can become an administrator. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

    I am aware of Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors, sorry about that. --TheM62Manchester 21:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

11. oppose insufficient experience. Pete.Hurd 21:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose Not enough Wiki experience, far too few posts and two months is too little time; I'm afraid I'm not convinced by this user's experience and urge withdrawal and re-application at a later date. Michael 22:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose Fails to meet my criteria by a long way. --Wisden17 23:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
14. Strong Oppose and urge to withdraw. The consensus, including I agrees that adminship is far away from you here, and you just need to get a lot more Wikipedia experience. --T. Moitie ^[talk] 00:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I see no reason in piling on more oppose votes. Will change my vote to oppose if it comes close though. Just not enough experience. Viridae^Talk 22:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.